duplicate_clip_to

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description explicitly mentions overwriting, consistent with destructiveHint annotation. Adds copy vs move distinction, but lacks details like automation behavior or session-only context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first states action and side effect, second adds value proposition. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers main purpose and side effect, but could clarify scope (session only, same set) and limitations. Output schema exists, so return values are handled.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% coverage, and description does not explain parameters individually. However, parameter names (src_track, dst_scene) are self-explanatory, mitigating the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action (copy a clip), target (any other track/scene slot), and side effect (overwrites destination). Distinguishes from siblings like duplicate_scene or delete_clip.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage as 'cross-track way to build variations' provides context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.